5.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Poznań.
6.  The applicant owns a house. In 1980 her neighbours constructed their house as the other part of the semi-detached house. It appears that their plumbing system was placed in a wall separating the two houses without necessary acoustic insulation. The applicant repeatedly complained about the noise caused by the neighbours’ plumbing system.
7.  On 6 May 1993 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznań Regional Prosecutor, alleging inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities in dealing with her grievances. On 9 July 1993 the Regional Prosecutor applied to the Poznań District Office to institute proceedings with a view to determining whether the plumbing system complied with the applicable legal regulations.
8.  On 31 January 1994 the Mayor of Poznań, who had assumed the competences of the District Office, refused to institute proceedings. On 29 March 1994 the Poznań Governor quashed that decision. Subsequently, on 18 April 1994 the Mayor of Poznań instituted proceedings. On 15 July 1994 the Mayor of Poznań discontinued the proceedings. It found that the applicant’s neighbours’ house had been constructed in accordance with the construction permit and that there had been no need to conduct any further proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.
9.  On 29 September 1994 the Poznań Governor quashed the Mayor’s decision. It held that it was not necessary to determine whether the plumbing system had been built in accordance with applicable regulations. The applicant appealed against that decision to the administrative court.
10.  On 23 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Governor’s decision and the preceding decision of the Mayor of Poznań. It held that the Mayor of Poznań had been obliged to determine by means of a decision whether the plumbing system in the neighbours’ house complied with the Construction Act and other applicable laws.
11.  On 1 June 2000 the applicant lodged with the administrative court a complaint about the inactivity of the Poznań District Inspector of Construction Supervision. This authority in the meantime had become competent to issue a decision in the case. The applicant alleged that the District Inspector had failed to issue a decision as required by the judgment of 23 May 1995.
12.  On 11 January 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment in favour of the applicant. It ordered the Poznań District Inspector of Construction Supervision to issue a decision on the compatibility of the plumbing system in the neighbours’ house with the applicable regulations within 30 days. It noted that despite its ruling of 23 May 1995 and the applicant’s repeated complaints the authorities had remained inactive for nearly five years.
13.  On 5 April 2001 the District Inspector issued a decision. It found that the plumbing system at issue complied with the relevant regulations. That decision was quashed on appeal on 13 July 2001.
14.  On 18 April 2002 the District Inspector ordered the applicant’s neighbours to provide an expert’s report on the plumbing system. On 5 November 2003 an expert delivered his opinion, which revealed certain irregularities in the structure of the plumbing system.
15.  The District Inspector issued another decision on 28 June 2004. It ordered the applicant’s neighbours to carry out works with a view to making their plumbing system compatible with the applicable regulations. The applicant’s neighbours appealed against that decision.
16.  On 5 August 2004 the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision upheld the decision on appeal. The applicant’s neighbours lodged an appeal with the Regional Administrative Court.
17.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant asked the court to accelerate the proceedings.
18.  On 6 September 2005 the neighbours complied with the District Inspector’s decision of 28 June 2004.
19.  The administrative court dismissed their appeal on 4 April 2006.
20.  On 14 June 2007 the General Inspector of Construction Supervision conducted an inspection of the building which did not reveal any noise caused by the neighbour’s plumbing system.